(Netflix/GlobalConnect a/s) Scheduled Open Connect Appliance upgrade is starting

Mon Jan 14 22:21:44 UTC 2019

> On Jan 13, 2019, at 12:11 PM, valdis.kletnieks at vt.edu wrote:
> 
> On Sun, 13 Jan 2019 20:55:54 +0100, Christoffer Hansen said:
> 
>> (*it is frustrating when content parity between HTML and PLAINTEXT
>> sections is e-mails is inconsistent. :/ )
> 
> Back when we were designing MIME,  somebody (Vernon Schryver?) stated
> that multipart/alternative with text/plain and text/html was *always* incorrect.
> 
> If the two parts are semantically equal, then one is superfluous and doesn't
> need to be sent. (Remember bandwidth costs in 1992...)
> 
> If the two parts aren't semantically equal, then one part is deficient at best
> and actively misleading at worst, and should not be sent.

This involves a number of erroneous assumptions, IMHO…

1.	All recipients have the ability to consume either form.
2.	HTML cannot offer a better experience to some recipients while remaining semantically
	equivalent to the plain text content.
3.	The improved recipient experience afforded by HTML has no value beyond what can be
	done in plain text.
4.	The cost of bandwidth will remain fixed at 1992 levels.

While I’m not a huge fan of the various forms of rich text for most emails, I do acknowledge that they do sometimes have merit and that in those cases, having a plain-text alternative included in the message for backwards compatibility with less capable or automated email consumers is, IMHO, preferable to not having it and consumes very little bandwidth by today’s standards.

Owen